GOP on target to "get" obama.....

[MKULTRABOY]

Considering 90% of the tests have been successful, sure. :shrug: And it's merely a technical challenge. There is no technical challenge that we cannot meet.

No single economy can get to mars, not even 50 years from now.

In any case, it's fundamentally stupid to give up our ability to try while getting nothing for it.

I'm glad you concede it isn't currently viable. It would be an excellent solution and should be pursued. So we can nuke them without getting nuked back.

And what does that babbling mean?

It's not even a consideration when taking nuclear deterrence into account in simulations. It's an R&D money sap. It might work... one day.

I didn't say they wouldn't. I said we'd be giving up our advantage for parity.

So the left is once again traitors who would give up the tactical advantage...

 

[Harshaw]

Different how... only a handful of nations possess a viable deterrent.

So what? China was a nothing power then. India was nothing then. The Soviets kept their Arabic satellites on tight leash. You deny that all this has changed? This is simply ignorant babbling.

You essentially are advocating pre-emptively nuking another nation... a small cough: 'rogue' nation possibly?

I never said anything remotely like that. Why do you have to make things up?

Where did you get the sound bytes you're repeating.

"Sound bites." Right. You're trying to mask your own ignorance on the issue by pretending I'm the parrot. Do some research.

Also, when you deny the information the policy makes from both countries are reading and depending on (aside from their privileged tactical information) and policy makers are depending on then you basically encourage ignorance.

OK, this sentence makes no sense.

 

[liblady]

Yeah. A reduction of OUR arms.

i have no problem with that.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I mean, if America can only blow up the world 3 times over, and Russia can blow up the world 10 times over, that's a huge strategic advantage. :coffeepap

:barf

Seriously?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Oh, nothing much, just our strategic arms advantage and with it flexibility to adjust to rapidly-changing global threats, as well as the ability to develop missile defense.

If I were Glenn beck I'd be pretty sure this is a neocon code phrase for nuke Iran. It doesn't mean anything. Where did you parrot this from?

 

[Harshaw]

No single economy can get to mars, not even 50 years from now.

Oh, good God. :roll: We've been to Mars. We've been to Mars many, many times. We just haven't put a person there. If all we wanted to do was land a guy, have him walk around, and then bring him back, we could do it within a year.

I'm glad you concede it isn't currently viable.

Nothing is viable until it is. Under this line of reasoning, nothing would happen, ever.

It would be an excellent solution and should be pursued.

Yeah. Now we can't.

So we can nuke them without getting nuked back.

Or we can stop a first strike. The bile you have for your own nation, as evidenced by the assumptions you make about it, is staggering.

It's not even a consideration when taking nuclear deterrence into account in simulations. It's an R&D money sap. It might work... one day.

Well, now that opportunity is needlessly foreclosed.

So the left is once again traitors who would give up the tactical advantage...

We've never had a tactical advantage. It's the strategic advantage we're willingly giving up. Against their decisive advantage in tactical nukes, most of which can be strategic weapons if placed on a strategic delivery vehicle such as a sub or a plane.

Really, if you want to argue this, you should brush up on some basic terms. You're throwing them around in ways which show you have no idea what they mean.

 

[Harshaw]

i have no problem with that.

Don't really care. Your personal preference doesn't make it actually good for the country.

 

[Harshaw]

If I were Glenn beck I'd be pretty sure this is a neocon code phrase for nuke Iran. It doesn't mean anything. Where did you parrot this from?

Apparently, this is the best you've got. :shrug: Try actually learning about the issues before you spout off sometime.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

So what? China was a nothing power then. India was nothing then. The Soviets kept their Arabic satellites on tight leash. You deny that all this has changed? This is simply ignorant babbling.

I never said anything remotely like that. Why do you have to make things up?

"Sound bites." Right. You're trying to mask your own ignorance on the issue by pretending I'm the parrot. Do some research.

OK, this sentence makes no sense.

Unfortunately to continue would be a massive sacrifice to your ego.

* Bradley L. Bowman, “The ‘Demand-Side’: Avoiding a Nuclear-Armed Iran,” Orbis (Fall 2008). (BB)
* Barry R. Posen, “We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran,” New York Times, 27 February 2008. (BB)
* James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, “After Iran Gets the Bomb,” Foreign Affairs (March/ April 2010). (BB)
* Joshua Muravchik, “Urgent: Operation Comeback,” Foreign Policy (November/ December 2006). (BB)
* Richard K. Betts, “The Osirak Fallacy,” The National Interest (Spring 2006). (BB)

* John Lewis Gaddis, “A Grand Strategy of Transformation,” Foreign Policy (2002). (BB)
* Robert Litwak, “Nonproliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change,” Survival (Winter 2003/ 2004). (BB)
* Barry Schneider, “Nuclear Proliferation and Counter-Proliferation: Policy Issues and Debates,” Mershon International Studies Review (1994). (BB)
* Michael Krepon, “Ban the Bomb. Really.” The American Interest (January/ February 2008). (BB).
* Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent,” Foreign Affairs (November/ December 2009). (BB)
* Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” Foreign Affairs (March/ April 2006). (BB)
* “Nuclear Exchange,” Foreign Affairs (September/October 2006). (BB)
*“Here Be Dragons: Is China a Military Threat?” The National Interest (September/ October 2009). (BB)
*Robert Jervis, “The Utility of Nuclear Deterrence,” in The Use of Force.

Feel free to catch up... unless you have some good sources...:shrug:

 

[Harshaw]

I mean, if America can only blow up the world 3 times over, and Russia can blow up the world 10 times over, that's a huge strategic advantage. :coffeepap

:barf

Seriously?

Very nice. It is in no way connected with any reality having to do with the treaty, but very nice.

 

[Harshaw]

Unfortunately to continue would be a massive sacrifice to your ego.

* Bradley L. Bowman, “The ‘Demand-Side’: Avoiding a Nuclear-Armed Iran,” Orbis (Fall 2008). (BB)
* Barry R. Posen, “We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran,” New York Times, 27 February 2008. (BB)
* James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, “After Iran Gets the Bomb,” Foreign Affairs (March/ April 2010). (BB)
* Joshua Muravchik, “Urgent: Operation Comeback,” Foreign Policy (November/ December 2006). (BB)
* Richard K. Betts, “The Osirak Fallacy,” The National Interest (Spring 2006). (BB)

* John Lewis Gaddis, “A Grand Strategy of Transformation,” Foreign Policy (2002). (BB)
* Robert Litwak, “Nonproliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change,” Survival (Winter 2003/ 2004). (BB)
* Barry Schneider, “Nuclear Proliferation and Counter-Proliferation: Policy Issues and Debates,” Mershon International Studies Review (1994). (BB)
* Michael Krepon, “Ban the Bomb. Really.” The American Interest (January/ February 2008). (BB).
* Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent,” Foreign Affairs (November/ December 2009). (BB)
* Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” Foreign Affairs (March/ April 2006). (BB)
* “Nuclear Exchange,” Foreign Affairs (September/October 2006). (BB)
*“Here Be Dragons: Is China a Military Threat?” The National Interest (September/ October 2009). (BB)
*Robert Jervis, “The Utility of Nuclear Deterrence,” in The Use of Force.

Feel free to catch up... unless you have some good sources...:shrug:

Umm . . . how does listing a bibliography in any way enhance your position here?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

We can discuss the content of the treaty that bothers you and I may be able to explain it.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Umm . . . how does listing a bibliography in any way enhance your position here?

It's like you're not here.... HELLO? Is it possible I'm speaking from what I know from this research?

 

[Harshaw]

It's like you're not here.... HELLO? Is it possible I'm speaking from what I know from this research?

No, it isn't possible, because if you had done any research, you'd at least know what the terms "strategic" and "tactical" mean.

Perhaps you should actually try reading these things instead of just copy/pasting a bibliography from some web page.

 

[Harshaw]

We can discuss the content of the treaty that bothers you and I may be able to explain it.

You are in no position to "explain" anything to me.

I already told you what the onerous parts of the treaty are.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

No, it isn't possible, because if you had done any research, you'd at least know what the terms "strategic" and "tactical" mean.

Hehe... "strategic" heh... "Tactical... heh... "Nookyular"

I wont go on... when reality hits... you just might...

 

[MKULTRABOY]

You are in no position to "explain" anything to me.

I already told you what the onerous parts of the treaty are.

Was it the 'tactical' part?

 

[Harshaw]

Hehe... "strategic" heh... "Tactical... heh... "Nookyular"

I wont go on... when reality hits... you just might...

Ah. Giving up. Smart move.

 

[Harshaw]

Was it the 'tactical' part?

There was a whole list. No point in repeating it; it's already up there.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

My gawd...

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy (mutual assured destruction). Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press. Foreign Affairs 85.2 (March-April 2006)
PRESENT AT THE DESTRUCTION
For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack. Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.
During the Cold War, many scholars and policy analysts believed that MAD made the world relatively stable and peaceful because it induced great caution in international politics, discouraged the use of nuclear threats to resolve disputes, and generally restrained the superpowers' behavior. (Revealingly, the last intense nuclear standoff, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, occurred at the dawn of the era of MAD.) Because of the nuclear stalemate, the optimists argued, the era of intentional great-power wars had ended. Critics of MAD, however, argued that it prevented not great-power war but the rolling back of the power and influence of a dangerously expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union. From that perspective, MAD prolonged the life of an evil empire.
This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.

Unfortunately due to lack of socialization these articles arent free and are under copyright. I don't have the right or the time to post them and educate you.

Nuclear Exchange: Does Washington Really Have (or Want) Nuclear Primacy? (Critical essay). Peter C.W. Flory, Keith Payne, Pavel Podvig, Alexei Arbatov, Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press. Foreign Affairs 85.5 (Sept-Oct 2006): p149

dobedooo....

In fact, the MK-21 reentry vehicles and warheads from retired Peacekeeper missiles (formerly known as "MX") are being installed on Minuteman III missiles to take advantage of the MK-21's improved safety characteristics. There is no increase in yield, and the MK-21 reentry vehicles do not increase the accuracy of Minuteman III missiles. Nor will the guidance replacement program under way for Minuteman III missiles -- which involves upgrading guidance components to extend the missiles' lives -- result in those ICBMs' reaching a level of accuracy equal to that of the Peacekeeper.

What do you want to know?

You must realise that information isnt free and the idea that you could access it through the raw internet and know more is absurd.
Unfortunately I sacrifice my reputation at risk of appearing to be an intellectual snob...

but yeah. When you said 10-1. I was like... wha?

 

[Harshaw]

My gawd...



Unfortunately due to lack of socialization these articles arent free and are under copyright. I don't have the right or the time to post them and educate you.



dobedooo....



What do you want to know?

OK. NONE of this helps your point. :doh

Take a look at that first article and try, by golly, really try, to figure out how it torpedoes the living **** out of your own position.

Although it IS most likely you spouted off here not HAVING any position other than "must . . . defend . . . Obama . . . against . . . Harshaw" and are making it up on the fly, thus you don't actually know why that article shoots you in the back.

 

[Goobieman]

Essentially you want to support the mythos that you can successfully create a shield by shooting a bullet with a bullet, or a laser... Missile defense is not even in consideration in curriculum. Also I didn't realize Russia wouldn't have to give up a single nuke.

That your 'curriculum' doesnt address it doesnt really mean that much.

Hit-to-kill, as a concept, has been deomostrated sound, and the systems he have in place now have been shown to be effective.

Given its purpose, there's no reason to give it up.

 

[Goobieman]

Different how... only a handful of nations possess a viable deterrent.

TWO nations possess a viable deterrent; the rest are also-rans.

You essentially are advocating pre-emptively nuking another nation...

Nothing he said even remotely suggests this.
His point is quite clear -- the entire treaty assumes a cold-war setting isn a post-cold war world. As such, the treaty isn't relevant to the security needs of the US and SHOULD be turned down.

 

[OscarB63]

That your 'curriculum' doesnt address it doesnt really mean that much.

Hit-to-kill, as a concept, has been deomostrated sound, and the systems he have in place now have been shown to be effective.

Given its purpose, there's no reason to give it up.

the latest fielded version of the PATRIOT missile defense system is "hit-to-kill" basically shooting a bullet with a bullet. multiple field tests and combat engagements during OIF have proven this technology is effective.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal

Whats that 10-1 ratio of Russian advantage again? This article contains as well the results of a simulation showing American nuclear primacy. To such a degree that cutting half our nukes means nothing.

Really you have yet to actually engage in a discussion except outright denial. Im pretty sure I'm sitting on a campus right now and about to go to this class.


WHy dont we start you easy...

Russia arguably hasn't had a nuclear advantage since the 60's. Where did you find your schlock your attempting to pass off as knowledge.